Shortly before a Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, her defense team filed an emergency appeal asking for the removal or further questioning of an allegedly biased juror.
“Petitioner asks this court to order the Plymouth County Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy … to inquire into the ability of the identified juror to apply the law or prohibit the further deliberations of a juror identified by the jury foreperson as biased and refusing to follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt unless and until the court determines by individual voir dire that the juror is willing and able to follow the court’s instructions,” read court documents submitted on Friday, September 4, and obtained by Us.
According to the appeal, which was ultimately denied by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Clancy’s team stated that the jury’s foreperson indicated to the judge that one of the jurors “has acknowledged doubt but is refusing to apply it to the case.” The dispute kept the jury deadlocked 11-1 after deliberating more than 36 hours following a nearly six-week trial held at Plymouth County Superior Court.
Clancy’s team argued that “a juror’s refusal to follow the law is always personal” and “not a matter of protected deliberative privilege.”
Clancy, 36, was arrested in January 2023 and charged with the strangling deaths of her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. She then jumped from a second-story window of her home in an apparent suicide attempt and was paralyzed from the waist down.
She never denied killing her kids but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Clancy’s defense argued that she had been suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder at the time, while the prosecution argued that the murders were premeditated.
“Removal is particularly important because the juror’s reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness,” the docs continued. “Intervention is necessary in this case to avoid an avoidable mistrial of a case that is so time and labor intensive and that has captured so much public attention. It is also necessary to preserve the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by unbiased jurors applying the law and to avoid violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 114, which makes mental illness a protected category.”
The filing concluded, “A mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job.”
Judge William Sullivan shared his intention to declare a mistrial during a hearing on Friday and granted Clancy’s defense, Kevin Reddington, one hour to seek an emergency stay.
The mistrial was made official after Reddington’s appeal was denied.
“I’m kind of a history buff and during World War II, Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of England when England pretty much stood against Nazi Germany alone,” the judge said while addressing the jury. “So Churchill [often] had to talk to the citizens and let us brace for our duties. I always like that phrase, and I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. You agreed to brace for that duty and each one of you knew how long the case was going to go, you knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to, facts-wise. But still, you braced for that duty.”
He continued, “I watched every day, day after day, week after week, [and] all of you [were] performing that duty that you braced for. And I kind of wanted to let you know: I understand how hard everyone worked in this case. I understood you all gave everything you could and probably more than you thought you could … I just want to thank you so much. You should be proud of what you did. You braced for that duty. You performed that duty.”
Another hearing has been scheduled for September 29. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said the prosecution will decide whether to retry the case against Clancy in the future.
